The Fools on the Hill

 

Benjamin Disraeli, the brilliant Prime Minister of England, once said:  "There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour."  This observation seems particularly applicable at this time, especially regarding the Republican Party.  But we must add to it the observation that while there is no honour in politics, nor is there courage or even intelligence as to that party in particular as the best evidence is it is for the most part made up of individuals so craven, so corrupt, so entirely spineless as to seem incredible.

How do we explain, otherwise, the fact that the Republicans making up the Senate and the House have become mere slaves to the grotesque creature who leads their party?  They cringe and obey him whatever he does and says.  If they had any intelligence or sense of history, they would understand that it's against their interests as members of the Legislative Branch to allow him and his lackeys to emasculate them and the government.  They've become political castrati singing his tune in high, piping voices.  They mince about the stage on which his bizarre opera is being played out, as if flaunting their servility.

Some of them gave lip service to the sanctity of our Constitution and the insurrection attempt in the past.  But they've changed their tune.  Now they parrot the claims he makes that January 6th was a lovefest.  They sanction pardons of those who threatened and injured members of law enforcement who strove to save their sorry asses on that day, which marked the end of American exceptionalism.  They fall over themselves in competition to praise his most fantastic claims and proposals.  They nod approvingly as he wrecks havoc.  The struggle to defend his caprices.

They shamelessly prostitute themselves in his service, as if he is their pimp.  We hear that some of his acolytes have joyfully said that "Daddy's home" as he took office.  There's something odd, indeed disturbing, when grown men bleat such a claim in their excitement.  How long have they eagerly awaited their Daddy's return, poor fellows?  They cherish their Daddy's approval.  They pander to those he panders to, simpering in their passion to please him.

What they do makes so little sense, and is such an extreme abandonment and surrender of their dignity and authority, that an argument can be made that they're victims of the psychological condition of infantilism--the retention of childish physical, mental and emotional characteristics in adult life.  How is it possible for them to have any self-respect?

We can only hope that they recover themselves somehow, and remember that they're supposed to be representatives of the people with obligations under the Constitution they've sworn to preserve, protect and defend.  Before it's too late.

The "Principleless" Platform of a Platformless Party

     

Brevity can be a desirable thing in American politics.  A political speech that is brief and to the point would be admirable, for example.  And as everything in a political campaign in our Great Republic seems endless, repetitive and squalid, it's understandable that any curtailment of the process seems prima facie desirable.

But alas, the Resolution adopted by the Republican Party at its convention this year, though blessedly brief, isn't remarkable for its brevity.  It would be possible, though unusual, for principles of a party or candidate to be stated succinctly.  It's remarkable because it states no principles of any kind.  Indeed, it doesn't even try to do so.  In fact, its language seems to express a kind of delight or relief that no principles need be identified, and concludes with a stern statement to the effect that no effort to formulate or promulgate any principles will be tolerated.  So perhaps there were some Republicans who felt it was important that the party at least seem to endorse principles and were being told that wouldn't happen.

Only a portion of the resolvedly unprincipled Resolution is shown above.  Most of the rest of it consists of claims that the fact that the Resolution contains no principles should not be taken to reflect adversely on the Republican Party and that it is wrong for anyone to to suggest that it does.  But the Resolution also states, more than once, that the Republican Party is united in support of the president.

This is most appropriate.  As close members of his family and others have noted, the president has no principles.  It's entirely fitting that a political party which eschews principles, or at least the expression of them, would support a person who is manifestly unprincipled.  

It's amazing, however, that a political party would flaunt its insistence that no principles may be espoused by it.  The rule is that in politics as in advertising appearance is significant, not substance.  So the expectation would be that a party, a politician and a candidate will at least pretend to be principled, pretend to stand for something, with varying degrees of sincerity or success.  But the Republican Party is so blithe in its dismissal of any effort to adopt a set of principles for this election that it's clear it has decided its failure to do so isn't a matter of concern.  Oddly, it doesn't even incorporate the prior election's platform, but merely mentions that there's no need to prepare another.

Does this mean that it has chosen to be honest about the fact that statements of political principles are meaningless, and generally disregarded, and so their preparation a wasted effort? There are portions of the Resolution which suggests that is the case.  That would certainly be extraordinary, particularly of a party which is moralistic and self-righteous to an extreme.  It has a long history of generating platitudes.  You'd think it would be an easy thing to resurrect those used in the past, or prepare new ones adequate to the task.  Probably, this is merely an effort to contend that it doesn't really matter whether it has a platform or not, in the end.

And that strikes me as an expression of profound resignation, if not cynicism; an acceptance of the relegation of a party to the whims of a single, self-obsessed person.  It's as if Republicans were saying "Screw it.  Principles?  A platform?  Come on!"

But it's hard to think that there is such a level of self-evaluation at work.  It's more likely, I believe, that the majority of the voting members of the party understand that the electors, or at least those who will vote Republican, don't care what principles are adopted or appear to be adopted.  Their cultish devotion to the president is such that they need have no reason to support him or those that facilitate his caperings.  

As a result, there's a concern that restating or reformulating the traditional principles of the party would merely make it, and them, look silly.  Whatever devotion there was to those principles has disappeared.  The Republican Party, as it now exists, supports the president because it has nothing else to support.  His largely incoherent ramblings and bizarre conduct have little to do with the nation or the best interests of its citizens.  The party knows this.  The members of the party are so craven that they don't wish to risk his displeasure by seeming to believe that he should concern himself with such things, instead of himself.  That's something he will not do, and he would resent anyone who tells him he should.

But it may be the case that most of the party has come to accept that principles are inconvenient in any event.  The less thought about them the better in this age of diminished people, things and ideas.